On April 19, 1994, I issued an arbitration decision involving the above-noted parties.
That
decision included the following:

AWARD

Section 17.06 is not an illegal infringement on the Sheriff's
constitutional and statutory
authority to appoint deputies making this grievance not arbitrable.

The County has violated Section 17.06 by not placing the most
senior qualified employee
applicant in the position of Floating Deputy.

As the remedy appropriate to the County's
violation of Section 17.06, the County shall make
Harry Pronschinske whole by reinstating him to the position of Floating Deputy to which he
was
appointed in April of 1993, and by compensating him for the difference between the wages
and
benefits he earned as a Correctional Officer and the wages and benefits he would have earned
but
for his removal from the position of Floating Deputy in May of 1993.

The County's implementation of that award provoked a grievance, filed on September
16, 1994,
on behalf of Kelly A. Dahlke. The parties determined that the Dahlke grievance should be
submitted by stipulation for a determination of the propriety of the County's implementation
of
the April 19, 1994 arbitration award. On February 15, 1995, the parties submitted a "Fact
Stipulation." By March 2, 1995, each party had submitted its written statement of position.

17.01 Seniority shall be based on the length of service
for which pay has been
received by an employee who has completed his probationary period. An
employee who has voluntarily terminated his employment and has returned
to employment with Eau Claire County shall have his seniority computed
from the time he returns to work. Seniority shall commence with the first
hour and date of work and shall continue to accrue during periods of
vacation, leave of absence, temporary lay-off due to lack of work, military
leave, periods of illness as set forth herein or other periods of absence as
may otherwise be mutually agreed upon. Should two (2) or more
employees be employed on the same date and hour, seniority shall be
determined by arranging these employees in alphabetical order on a
seniority list starting with the last name and ending with the first name.

BACKGROUND

The parties' Fact Stipulation reads thus:

1. On April 26, 1993 Sheriff Hewitt appointed Kelly A.
Dahlke as a Deputy Sheriff for Eau
Claire County in the position of Floating Deputy. On April 27, 1993 Sheriff Hewitt
appointed Harry J. Pronschinske as a Deputy Sheriff for Eau Claire County as a Deputy
Sheriff Jailer. Both appointments were made from the April 2, 1993 Deputy Sheriff
eligibility list on which Kelly A. Dahlke was ranked No. 2 and Harry J. Pronschinske was
ranked No. 5. Kelly A. Dahlke had not previously been employed by the Eau Claire
County Sheriff's Department. Harry J. Pronschinske had been employed by the Eau
Claire Sheriff's Department as a Civilian Correctional Officer prior to that time.

2. Shortly thereafter, Eau Claire County determined that
there was only one Deputy Sheriff
vacancy. Therefore, the Sheriff returned Harry J. Pronschinske to his position as Civilian
Correctional Officer and retained Kelly A. Dahlke as a Floating Deputy.

3. General Teamsters Union, Local 662 filed a grievance
alleging that the selection of Ms.
Dahlke violated the Civilian Correctional Officers' collective bargaining agreement. On
April 19, 1994 Arbitrator Richard B. McLaughlin issued his award finding the County had
violated Section 17.06 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by not placing the most
senior qualified employee applicant in the position of Floating Deputy and ordered the
County to make Harry J. Pronschinske whole by reinstating him to that position and
compensating him for the difference between the wages and benefits he had earned as a
Correctional Officer and the wages and benefits he would have earned as Floating Deputy.

4. By the time of the award, another
Deputy Sheriff vacancy had been created. Effective
January 1, 1994, Sheriff Hewitt appointed Harry J. Pronschinske to the Deputy Sheriff
position to fill the newly created vacancy. Kelly A. Dahlke continued to serve as a Deputy
Sheriff. As a result of Arbitrator McLaughlin's award, Harry J. Pronschinske's Deputy
Sheriff seniority date was changed to April 26, 1993.

6. On September 16, 1994, Kelly A. Dahlke filed a
grievance requesting that her seniority
be changed to make her senior to Harry J. Pronschinske (a copy of the grievance is
attached as Exhibit "B"). This grievance arose under the collective bargaining agreement
covering Deputy Sheriff's at Eau Claire County (a copy of that collective bargaining
agreement is attached as Exhibit "C").

7. The parties agreed to stipulate to the basic facts and the
issue and to file letter briefs with
Arbitrator McLaughlin.

9. In considering this issue, the Arbitrator may utilize as he
deems necessary the entire record
in the underlying arbitration case in which the award issued on April 19, 1994.

10. As needed, the Arbitrator may order a hearing or such
supplemental submissions
as he may deem necessary.

. . .

THE UNION'S POSITION

The Union states its position thus:

Teamsters Local 662 has members whose seniority interests
conflict. On the one hand, Mr.
Pronschinske asserts that he is entitled to have the higher seniority standing, since he should
have
been appointed to the vacant position. On the other hand, Ms. Dahlke claims that she
should have
the same seniority date as Mr. Pronschinske. If that is the case, she further claims that she
should
be placed ahead of Mr. Pronschinske on the seniority list since her last name appears first in
the
alphabet.

THE COUNTY'S POSITION

The County states its position thus:

It is Eau Claire County's position that the November 28, 1994
Seniority Roster is correct in
listing Harry J. Pronschinske above Kelly A. Dahlke. It is the County's position that Section
17.01 of the contract which would otherwise result in Kelly A. Dahlke being placed first on
the
seniority list since her last name appears first in the alphabet is inapplicable due to your
decision
in "Eau Claire County (Sheriff's Department) Case 178 No. 49623 MA-7879."

Your arbitration decision required the County to make Harry J.
Pronschinske whole for wages
and benefits he would have earned but for his return to the Civilian Unit. One of the
benefits he
would have earned was seniority status beginning with the date he should have been
appointed.
Since, under your award, Kelly A. Dahlke had absolutely no right under the contract to be
appointed on April 26, 1993, it logically follows that Harry J. Pronschinske should be listed
above
Kelly A. Dahlke on the seniority list. To reverse the order would lead to an absurd result
and
would in effect overrule at least to some degree your arbitration award. The November 28,
1994
seniority list should be upheld in its present form, with Harry J. Pronschinske being listed
above
Kelly A. Dahlke.

DISCUSSION

The issue is stipulated, as is the factual background. The contractual background to
the
Dahlke grievance poses a technical problem, since the April 19, 1994 decision addressed
rights
granted under Section 17.06 of the agreement covering non-sworn personnel while Dahlke's
grievance questions rights under Section 17.01 of the agreement covering sworn personnel.
The
presence of two labor agreements affecting Pronschinske's and Dahlke's rights poses only a
technical point. The County and the Union are the contracting parties to each agreement.
Section
17.06 of the agreement covering non-sworn personnel addresses the conditions governing an
employe's transition from one unit to the other. Whether or not the language of that
provision
is clear and unambiguous, it clearly and unambiguously anticipates movement from one unit
to
the other. It is apparent, then, that the parties intended the two agreements to operate in
concert.
Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the provisions of Article 17 of the two agreements,
standing alone, pose any interpretive conflict.

The conflict posed by the Dahlke grievance is factual, and focuses on the provisions
of
Section 17.01 of the agreement covering deputies. The Dahlke grievance has some basis in
that
provision. If Pronschinske and Dahlke were "employed on the same date and hour," then
the final
clause of the final sentence of Section 17.01 provides the tie-breaking mechanism the Dahlke
grievance asserts. That the seniority roster for Sheriff's Deputies lists Pronschinske and
Dahlke
as sharing "04/26/93" as the "DATE OF SENIORITY" lends factual support for the Dahlke
grievance.

That support, however, breaks down under further examination. The parties' fact
stipulation notes that Dahlke was appointed a Floating Deputy by Hewitt on April 26, 1993,
while
Pronschinske was so appointed on April 27. Pronschinske was moved back to the non-sworn
unit
when the County determined to retain only one Floating Deputy position. In the April 19,
1994
arbitration award, I determined that "by not placing the most senior qualified employe
applicant
in the position of Floating Deputy" the "County has violated Section 17.06" of the
agreement
covering non-sworn personnel. As noted above, I ordered the County to make Pronschinske
whole.

The Dahlke grievance is based on the fact that Pronschinske, originally appointed
Floating
Deputy on April 27, 1993, acquired, through the make-whole order, a starting date of April
26,
1993. Since this is the same date as Dahlke's appointment, the Dahlke grievance presumes
the
tie-breaking mechanism of Section 17.01 must be applied to assess Pronschinske's and
Dahlke's
seniority rights. This presumption rests, however, on facts which cannot be viewed standing
alone, but must be viewed against the background which prompted the grievance underlying
Pronschinske's appointment. By isolating the facts noted above, and ignoring the
circumstances
surrounding the April 19, 1994 award, the Dahlke grievance, in significant part, reads the
contract
violation found in the preceding grievance out of existence.

The violation found in the original case rests on the basis that Sheriff Hewitt did not,
under
Section 17.06, have the discretion to prefer Dahlke, as an outside applicant, over
Pronschinske
as the most senior and qualified applicant from the non-sworn unit. From this it follows that
the
position filled by Hewitt with Dahlke on April 26, 1993, should have been filled with
Pronschinske. That there were two Floating Deputy positions involved, and that the original
grievance questioned whether unit members outside the "Rule of Five" had rights superior to
Pronschinske and to Dahlke made the point raised by the Dahlke grievance non-essential to
the
resolution of the original grievance. However, the remedy ordered in the original grievance
required the County to make Pronschinske whole. To find the Dahlke grievance persuasive
effectively makes Pronschinske less than whole for the contract violation
found in the April 19, 1994 decision. He would be penalized for Hewitt's wrongful
placement
of Dahlke in the position he should have been offered.

The County could have reflected this conclusion by noting Dahlke's seniority date as
April
27, 1993. This would have, however, ignored the fact that Dahlke, through no apparent
fault of
her own, assumed her employment on April 26, 1993. The County correctly chose to reflect
her
seniority accurately and note that due to the make-whole requirement of the April 19, 1994
decision, Pronschinske must be considered the more senior employe. Any other conclusion
would
pose an unnecessary conflict between the provisions of the agreements covering the sworn
and the
non-sworn bargaining units. As noted above, the two agreements were intended to operate in
concert, and must be construed to do so.